The Wright Bros wanted an engine that developed 8 horsepower and weighed less than 200 pounds. They quickly discovered that no one made such an engine in 1903. They would have to make their own, from scratch. They cast their own engine block in aluminum. According to later reminiscences by Charles Taylor, the Wright's "mechanician" who built the engine, there were no drawings, it was all built from sketches. Contrary to modern practice, the pistons were cast iron rather than aluminum. It had no carburetor, and no throttle. Gasoline ran out of a tube into the intake manifold where engine heat vaporized it. Lacking a throttle, the engine ran at full power all the time. It had a chain driven camshaft that worked the exhaust valves and the ignition points. Intake valves were held closed with springs, and opened from the suction of the piston going down, no cam drive as is normal today. The hand built engine exceeded spec, producing 12 horsepower and only weighing 180 pounds.
All this from this week's Aviation Week, which is celebrating their 100th anniversary.
Monday, December 14, 2015
Sunday, December 13, 2015
I've been hacked, courtesy of Uncle Sam
Letter came in yesterday from Office of Personnel Management (OPM). My records got hacked in the great OPM hack a little while ago.
OPM was probably running Windows, did not insist on strong passwords changed every 30 days, kept everything on line instead of off line, and gave Internet access to every computer in the building, did not run firewalls, and allowed contractors access to the data.
I suppose my Air Force service records from long ago were on the system as well as the secret clearance I held up until I retired. I wonder where OPM got my current address which they used to address the letter. That address would not have been in any of my records at OPM since I did not live here in those days. Maybe they got it off my federal income tax return? To which no one is supposed to have access except IRS?
I did notice the letter was signed "Acting Director". Apparently the previous director, the one responsible for the hack, was relieved of duty. Should have been boiled in oil.
"I'm from the government and I am here to screw you"
OPM was probably running Windows, did not insist on strong passwords changed every 30 days, kept everything on line instead of off line, and gave Internet access to every computer in the building, did not run firewalls, and allowed contractors access to the data.
I suppose my Air Force service records from long ago were on the system as well as the secret clearance I held up until I retired. I wonder where OPM got my current address which they used to address the letter. That address would not have been in any of my records at OPM since I did not live here in those days. Maybe they got it off my federal income tax return? To which no one is supposed to have access except IRS?
I did notice the letter was signed "Acting Director". Apparently the previous director, the one responsible for the hack, was relieved of duty. Should have been boiled in oil.
"I'm from the government and I am here to screw you"
Saturday, December 12, 2015
Words of the Weasel Part 41
"Progressive". That's what liberals now call themselves since liberal has become a bad word.
Friday, December 11, 2015
The Mystique of America vs that of ISIS
ISIS has a strong mystique, strong enough to get young people from Europe and even America to travel to Syria and take up arms with them. Strong enough to get a couple of fanatics in San Bernardino to shoot down 14 of their co workers in cold blood and then die in a gun battle with police.
Well, America has a strong mystique too. America where the streets are paved with gold. America from where hot pop music comes from. America land of the Hollywood movie and the Wild West. America the land of fine big powerful cars and flawless thruways. America where obstacles are over come with miraculous new technology. America that flies to the Moon. America where all men are created equal. America where any man can become rich. America which has millions of people yearning to get in. America which has taken in millions of immigrants over the last century and turned them into hardworking loyal citizens.
I'll bet that we can take in 10,000 or even more Syrian refugees, settle them, employ them, and turn them into hardworking loyal citizens just like we have done with millions of immigrants in the past. Even if a few ISIS crazies slip in with them, the bulk of them will buy into America, and tip the cops off to any terrorists hiding in their midst.
It's worked before, and I bet it will work again.
Well, America has a strong mystique too. America where the streets are paved with gold. America from where hot pop music comes from. America land of the Hollywood movie and the Wild West. America the land of fine big powerful cars and flawless thruways. America where obstacles are over come with miraculous new technology. America that flies to the Moon. America where all men are created equal. America where any man can become rich. America which has millions of people yearning to get in. America which has taken in millions of immigrants over the last century and turned them into hardworking loyal citizens.
I'll bet that we can take in 10,000 or even more Syrian refugees, settle them, employ them, and turn them into hardworking loyal citizens just like we have done with millions of immigrants in the past. Even if a few ISIS crazies slip in with them, the bulk of them will buy into America, and tip the cops off to any terrorists hiding in their midst.
It's worked before, and I bet it will work again.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Strategy, as opposed to tactics.
Strategy is the highest level of planning and directing a war. Tactics is concerned with how to win an engagement with the enemy. For instance, at the Casablanca conference in WWII, President Roosevelt announced that the allied war aim was "Unconditional Surrender". That was strategic. It surprised our allies the British, and it shocked the German enemy. But it told the American voters, whose unflinching support for the war was essential, that the administration was not fooling around, and that we would not settle for the sort of half measures that followed WWI. Other strategic decisions of WWII were the decision to do Germany first, and the decision to invade North Africa.
Tactical decisions, are of a lower level. For instance, George Washington when he crossed the Delaware, fearing that his colonial militiamen might not be able to stand up to Hessian regulars, brought eighteen guns across the river with his infantry. When battle was joined American artillery superiority quickly decided things. That is an example of a tactical decision.
By my way of thinking, current day discussions about boots on the ground, is a tactical discussion, it is not strategic. The strategic discussion, which we have not had, is what should we do about ISIS and middle east insurgency under any name they select. We could ignore them and hope they go away or die out. We could embargo them, cut off their oil sales, access to the banking system, commercial air transport, and all imports. We could bomb them, either lightly, or back to stone age. We could infiltrate political operatives, or a modern day Lawrence of Arabia, and attempt to raise a revolution against ISIS. We could invade and occupy the ISIS lands. Or some other option that has not occured to me. These are strategic issues.
Whether to deploy American troops is a tactical decision. I only see American troops necessary if we decide to invade and occupy the ISIS lands. The lesser strategic options could be done without US troops.
Our country would be better off by first deciding upon a strategy, rounding up the political support for the strategy, and executing it. So far, nobody, Obama, the media, the Congress, the pundits, not even Rush Limbaugh, has said a word about strategy. We don't have one.
Tactical decisions, are of a lower level. For instance, George Washington when he crossed the Delaware, fearing that his colonial militiamen might not be able to stand up to Hessian regulars, brought eighteen guns across the river with his infantry. When battle was joined American artillery superiority quickly decided things. That is an example of a tactical decision.
By my way of thinking, current day discussions about boots on the ground, is a tactical discussion, it is not strategic. The strategic discussion, which we have not had, is what should we do about ISIS and middle east insurgency under any name they select. We could ignore them and hope they go away or die out. We could embargo them, cut off their oil sales, access to the banking system, commercial air transport, and all imports. We could bomb them, either lightly, or back to stone age. We could infiltrate political operatives, or a modern day Lawrence of Arabia, and attempt to raise a revolution against ISIS. We could invade and occupy the ISIS lands. Or some other option that has not occured to me. These are strategic issues.
Whether to deploy American troops is a tactical decision. I only see American troops necessary if we decide to invade and occupy the ISIS lands. The lesser strategic options could be done without US troops.
Our country would be better off by first deciding upon a strategy, rounding up the political support for the strategy, and executing it. So far, nobody, Obama, the media, the Congress, the pundits, not even Rush Limbaugh, has said a word about strategy. We don't have one.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Adventures in Oven Cleaning
I put the evil day off as long as possible. But with all the children coming home for Christmas I wanted to show the kids that the old man was capable of keeping a decent house and enjoying his retirement. So I started at 11 AM. Didn't finish till 4 PM. Arrgh.
Cleaning this oven is not for the faint hearted. It needs spintites, pliers, a trouble light, in addition to Easy Off, Brillo, lots of old newpapers to mop up the sludge, a sacrificial sponge. This oven has a heating element floating on spacers an inch above the oven floor. I's gotta come out if you want to get the bottom of the oven clean. Takes spintites to get it loose. This time there was a scary zorch as I pulled the heating element out. That didn't happen last time. So I tripped gaily down to the cellar and pulled the two forty amp stove breakers.
Lotta Easy Off. Give it an hour to bite into the crud. Mop up with old newspapers, then give it a shot of FantasTic and wipe down with a sponge that you will never use again. Uggh. Easy Off the broiler, the burner pans, the oven grilles.
It's done. I pushed the oven breakers in. Haven't had the guts to turn the stove on yet.
Arrrgh.
Post script. Stove works, but there is a POWERFUL odor of Easy Off when the oven heats up. Hopefully that will fade away with time.
Cleaning this oven is not for the faint hearted. It needs spintites, pliers, a trouble light, in addition to Easy Off, Brillo, lots of old newpapers to mop up the sludge, a sacrificial sponge. This oven has a heating element floating on spacers an inch above the oven floor. I's gotta come out if you want to get the bottom of the oven clean. Takes spintites to get it loose. This time there was a scary zorch as I pulled the heating element out. That didn't happen last time. So I tripped gaily down to the cellar and pulled the two forty amp stove breakers.
Lotta Easy Off. Give it an hour to bite into the crud. Mop up with old newspapers, then give it a shot of FantasTic and wipe down with a sponge that you will never use again. Uggh. Easy Off the broiler, the burner pans, the oven grilles.
It's done. I pushed the oven breakers in. Haven't had the guts to turn the stove on yet.
Arrrgh.
Post script. Stove works, but there is a POWERFUL odor of Easy Off when the oven heats up. Hopefully that will fade away with time.
Feudalism and the Stirrup thesis
This is a thesis in medieval history. The stirrup, invented somewhere out east, India perhaps, the steppes perhaps, came to Western Europe in the 700's. We have contemporary painting, carvings and such, some show riders without stirrups, some show riders with stirrups. Which makes us think the stirrup came into wide spread use after 700AD and before 800AD.
In case you have never ridden a horse, I can tell you that stirrups on your saddle make all the difference in the world. With stirrups your seat is firm, firm enough to rope cows and drag them to a halt, firm enough to wield a sword, and especially firm enough to couch a lance, and stay on your horse after you hit the other guy. Without stirrups you are riding bareback, and all the rider's attention is devoted to staying on the horse. Wielding edged weapons or even shooting arrows bareback is just not practical.
Which is why cavalry was a minor force, used mostly for scouting up until the time of Charlemagne. Charlemagne's cavalry were the first equipped with stirrups, and they conquered all of Western Europe. Armored cavalry dominated European warfare up until the infantry were issued muskets sometime in the 1500's. Frankish knights on the First Crusade easily swept Muslim opponents from the field. When the Franks lowered their lances and spurred their horses into a charge, look out, nothing could stop them.
Armored cavalry are far more expensive to equip than infantry. The horse is costly, so is the armor, and other gear. So expensive that the land of Western Europe was divided into fiefs, each big enough to support a cavalry man, who was planted on the land as a nobleman. Which lead to the nobility of Europe, who called the shots and ran things up until the French revolution, and in some countries far later. This was called the feudal system.
The feudal system was standard thinking among medieval historians, until the 1970's. They were teaching it to my daughter at John's Hopkins only a few years ago.
Now the bulk of medievalists no longer believe in the feudal explanation of European history. They have a new thesis, which I do not understand, but they are all very set on it.
And so, on a medieval history mailing list, we have the following topic getting discussed, "Can educators really affect willful ignorance?" The gist of this thread is plenty of students come into the class believing in feudalism as a thesis, and still believe in it at the end of the class. Teaching of the alternate thesis doesn't take. And this is just dreadful. I'd be more sympathetic if I even knew the name of the alternate thesis, even more if I had read a good explanation of it, in a hard back book. I'm a history buff, and had such a book come to my attention I would have read it.
In case you have never ridden a horse, I can tell you that stirrups on your saddle make all the difference in the world. With stirrups your seat is firm, firm enough to rope cows and drag them to a halt, firm enough to wield a sword, and especially firm enough to couch a lance, and stay on your horse after you hit the other guy. Without stirrups you are riding bareback, and all the rider's attention is devoted to staying on the horse. Wielding edged weapons or even shooting arrows bareback is just not practical.
Which is why cavalry was a minor force, used mostly for scouting up until the time of Charlemagne. Charlemagne's cavalry were the first equipped with stirrups, and they conquered all of Western Europe. Armored cavalry dominated European warfare up until the infantry were issued muskets sometime in the 1500's. Frankish knights on the First Crusade easily swept Muslim opponents from the field. When the Franks lowered their lances and spurred their horses into a charge, look out, nothing could stop them.
Armored cavalry are far more expensive to equip than infantry. The horse is costly, so is the armor, and other gear. So expensive that the land of Western Europe was divided into fiefs, each big enough to support a cavalry man, who was planted on the land as a nobleman. Which lead to the nobility of Europe, who called the shots and ran things up until the French revolution, and in some countries far later. This was called the feudal system.
The feudal system was standard thinking among medieval historians, until the 1970's. They were teaching it to my daughter at John's Hopkins only a few years ago.
Now the bulk of medievalists no longer believe in the feudal explanation of European history. They have a new thesis, which I do not understand, but they are all very set on it.
And so, on a medieval history mailing list, we have the following topic getting discussed, "Can educators really affect willful ignorance?" The gist of this thread is plenty of students come into the class believing in feudalism as a thesis, and still believe in it at the end of the class. Teaching of the alternate thesis doesn't take. And this is just dreadful. I'd be more sympathetic if I even knew the name of the alternate thesis, even more if I had read a good explanation of it, in a hard back book. I'm a history buff, and had such a book come to my attention I would have read it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)